David Josephs a question for you

[Mike Williams]

The paraffin tests at the very best are inconclusive. I have written on this before. look it up. They certainly are in no way exonerating, now are they?

Ummm. I think you might be confused, Mike.

Oswald had NO nitrates on his cheek. NONE at all. Yet, he did have nitrates on his hands. What does this mean? Well, it's quite simple. He could have easily picked up nitrates on his hands from handling the boxes and other materials in the TSBD building as a NORMAL function of his work. Yet, we know that if he fired a rifle that day he would NECESSARILY have had to acquire a nitrate splash pattern on his right cheek at the very least (and possibly beyond). This is not conjecture but well established fact. That's what happens when a person fires a rifle. I know because I've done it and so do you.

The problem is this: He had no nitrates on his cheeks--none at all! I guess he could have washed them off? If he did how could he still have nitrates on his hands then?

Read the FBI and DPD reports for yourself. That's what they say. None on his face, but lots on his hands.

What do you think happened? Maybe he washed his face with his feet?

That's odd Greg, when the FBI tested the nitrate test on men known to have fired a weapon its accuracy failed miserably.

Not at all to mention that a closed bolt weapon may or may not leave nitrates, depending on many factors.

[Mike Williams]

Oh boy Mike... bringing up the backyard photo as proof he picked up the rifle when we don't even fully know that that photo as authentic... Furthermore, if you look carefully at that photo you'll see the ring that holds the (brain fart.. shoulder sling??) at the top of the rifle, is on the bottom (underside) of the rifle...

If you look at photos of the rifle in evidence, the ring is on the side. I'm not convinced they're the same rifle or even Oswald in the photo... another subject, another disagreement...

DJ

David,

At one time I had a pdf og the back yard photos and they were enlarged and quite clear. I think this may have taken a dive with my old computer. Any idea where I can find some large and clear copies to look over? I would sure appreciate it.

Mike

[Greg Burnham]

That's odd Greg, when the FBI tested the nitrate test on men known to have fired a weapon its accuracy failed miserably.

Geez Mike, I wonder why they still use similar tests to this day?

Not at all to mention that a closed bolt weapon may or may not leave nitrates, depending on many factors.

Sorry, that's not responsive. They conducted the tests. They conducted them for a reason. The likes of McAdams and those of his ilk would have us believe that the test was not reliable. Why? Because the test result was exculpatory. If he had nitrates ONLY on his cheek, but not on his hands, they would have explained it this way: "After firing the rifle, he obviously washed his hands, but not his face."

However, since the opposite is the case (none on his cheek, but lots on his hands), that evidence is exculpatory and therefore, it must be discredited...even if doing so is counter-intuitive.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[David Josephs]

This is the largest version of the photo I've ever seen... Google is amazing!

Click on it... it's 4234 × 5283.

Also know there's a fine presentation on the subject but I don't have my flash drive with me... and I can't seem to find it on google... okay, not always amazing...

tomorrow

edit: found it - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=85804&mesg_id=85804&page=

DJ

http://oswald-framed.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-dartmouth-professors-analysis-of.html

http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

Edited June 23, 2010 by David Josephs

[Mike Williams]

This is the largest version of the photo I've ever seen... Google is amazing!

Click on it... it's 4234 × 5283.

Also know there's a fine presentation on the subject but I don't have my flash drive with me... and I can't seem to find it on google... okay, not always amazing...

tomorrow

edit: found it - http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=3&topic_id=85804&mesg_id=85804&page=

DJ

http://oswald-framed.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-dartmouth-professors-analysis-of.html

http://www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald%27s%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

Thanks David thats the one I was looking for.

[David Josephs]

Still one of my favorites Lee...

"The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power the system can afford to distribute just enough to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority. It is a country so powerful, so big, so pleasing to so many of its citizens that it can afford to give freedom of dissent to the small number who are not pleased. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred - by economic inequity - faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices."

Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States

[David Josephs]

I can't believe that we are still arguing about those silly backyard photos. They are completely reliant on two things: 1.) Marina Oswald and 2.) Blakey's photo panel.

First, how can anyone today take Marina seriously as a witness. Even RIchard Russell, as I pointed out, discounted her back in 1964. But further, in her SS interview she said she never saw a rifle with a scope until after the assassination. (Whitewash 2, p. 16) Add that to the fact that there is no proof Oswald picked up the rifle, plus the fact that the rifle in the TSBD was the wrong model, and on that model Klein's did not mount scopes etc etc! I mean give me a break.

Concerning Blakey's phony panel, which McAdams still buys into, one of the reports that Blakey classified was something called the Eisendrath Fake Photography Report. David Eisendrath was an illustrious and noted photographer for about 40 years. The HSCA panel hired him to prepare a series of tests seeing if Blakey's expert picture panel could properly detect forgery. EIsendrath prepared three altered versions of the BPS. When he got back his test results he was shocked.

Knowing the mock ups he submitted to the experts were phony, the experts each picked the wrong way that they had been falsified. EIsendrath called this a "bombshell", which it was. He even told Mickey Goldsmith to destroy his report. Which thankfully he did not. They just classified it for about 15 years. So McAdams still talks about the HSCA certifying those pictures when, in fact, it is proven the HSCA could not properly detect forgery when they had it in front of them.

I hear you Jim.... BUT

In one sentence you say Marina cannot be taken seriously as a witness

and in the next you state she said she never saw a rifle with a scope.

If she is unreliable, she's unreliable. I had these same discussions with Bill Miller.

Either a witness is discredited or not... if not, then we can't hang our hat on the things she says that are in support of our theories

and not when they aren't.

Bottom line is I agree with you about the Photos... especially the manner in which they were found and how Fritz

refers to them hours before they're even discovered at the Paine garage

DJ

[Craig Lamson]

I can't believe that we are still arguing about those silly backyard photos. They are completely reliant on two things: 1.) Marina Oswald and 2.) Blakey's photo panel.

First, how can anyone today take Marina seriously as a witness. Even RIchard Russell, as I pointed out, discounted her back in 1964. But further, in her SS interview she said she never saw a rifle with a scope until after the assassination. (Whitewash 2, p. 16) Add that to the fact that there is no proof Oswald picked up the rifle, plus the fact that the rifle in the TSBD was the wrong model, and on that model Klein's did not mount scopes etc etc! I mean give me a break.

Concerning Blakey's phony panel, which McAdams still buys into, one of the reports that Blakey classified was something called the Eisendrath Fake Photography Report. David Eisendrath was an illustrious and noted photographer for about 40 years. The HSCA panel hired him to prepare a series of tests seeing if Blakey's expert picture panel could properly detect forgery. EIsendrath prepared three altered versions of the BPS. When he got back his test results he was shocked.

Knowing the mock ups he submitted to the experts were phony, the experts each picked the wrong way that they had been falsified. EIsendrath called this a "bombshell", which it was. He even told Mickey Goldsmith to destroy his report. Which thankfully he did not. They just classified it for about 15 years. So McAdams still talks about the HSCA certifying those pictures when, in fact, it is proven the HSCA could not properly detect forgery when they had it in front of them.

Having just read your piece on Farid and the backyard photos is is simply amazing to see your total lack of understanding of situation. How in the world could anyone be expected to take your words seriously, given your lack of the basic skills required to make your claims?

Shocking.

[Greg Burnham]

I hear you, Lee. Loud and clear. I took a rather long break myself after the episode of TMWKK, in which I had particpated, was censored. I got married and decided to spend my time differently than I had been. My daughter just gave birth to my first grandchild a few weeks ago. I live in San Diego and they live in Australia. So, we're going there to visit next week. If they lived closer, I might have decided to "give all this up again" --but as it is I'll still hang around. I'm going to visit with John Costella while we're down there, too.

Take care--

You, my friend, have a lot more patience with this foolishness than I.

If there's anyone who comes across this site by accident Greg, University students, high school students, people who have just become interested in the case then I want them to know that there is EVERY REASON to question EVERY ASPECT of this case and not to fall for any of the mind-games and dogmatic rhetoric that is printed on this forum by proponents and supporters of the Warren Commission. I guess that's why I keep coming back although I do sit and think that I could be spending this valuable time with my beautiful daughters.

I am thinking of putting it all to bed to be honest Greg. I believe I need a rest from it all.

There was a person, I forget his name, who once said "How convenient it is for leaders that the people they lead do not think."

[Mike Williams]

I hear you, Lee. Loud and clear. I took a rather long break myself after the episode of TMWKK, in which I had particpated, was censored. I got married and decided to spend my time differently than I had been. My daughter just gave birth to my first grandchild a few weeks ago. I live in San Diego and they live in Australia. So, we're going there to visit next week. If they lived closer, I might have decided to "give all this up again" --but as it is I'll still hang around. I'm going to visit with John Costella while we're down there, too.

Take care--

You, my friend, have a lot more patience with this foolishness than I.

If there's anyone who comes across this site by accident Greg, University students, high school students, people who have just become interested in the case then I want them to know that there is EVERY REASON to question EVERY ASPECT of this case and not to fall for any of the mind-games and dogmatic rhetoric that is printed on this forum by proponents and supporters of the Warren Commission. I guess that's why I keep coming back although I do sit and think that I could be spending this valuable time with my beautiful daughters.

I am thinking of putting it all to bed to be honest Greg. I believe I need a rest from it all.

There was a person, I forget his name, who once said "How convenient it is for leaders that the people they lead do not think."

Greg,

Now thats the stuff the really matters!

Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip!

Mike

[Craig Lamson]

Well done Craig, you really showed him huh?

Of course, we all know that the best way to prove somebody wrong is by saying that they don't know what they're talking about and then not bothering to explain why.

It's been done to death yet the ignorance and crap still persists. His work is published. You assume I'm out to "prove someone wrong". Might I suggest it's Jim's place to prove himself correct. Of course I'll be quite happy to discuss his very flawed work, point by point.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

We are not using my words here. We are using David Eisendrath's. Go ahead, argue with his credentials.

I'm using your words, "Having just read your piece on Farid", and I can clearly argue YOUR credentials, which are NONE! You simply don't have legs to stand on.

We can get to Eisendrath after we finish dismantling you.

YOUR words...

But that wasn't enough for the liberal Huffpo. They also printed an article about one Hany Farid. Farid runs the Image Science Laboratory at Dartmouth. He claims to have solved a great mystery about the famous backyard photos of Lee Harvey Oswald. He says that it is possible to duplicate the weird shadow pattern in the photos and make them originate from just one light source. Even though some have said there had to be two. How did he solve this puzzling problem? The same way that Dale Myers and Gerald Posner explained away the Single Bullet Theory. Farid used the ever-helpful computer simulation. Did anyone tell the professor that, in 1963, people did not have personal computers or photographic software? That a real duplicating experiment would have had to been done using the technology that was extant in 1963? Further, according to the article in Science Daily (11/6/09), Farid is an authority on digital imaging. This is a different technology than the old style chemical process used in sixties cameras.

But that did not stop Huffpo from running their news summary of this story in advance of the 2009 anniversary. Or from Farid declaring, "Those who believe that there was a broader conspiracy can no longer point to this photo as possible evidence." (ibid)

Farid's great discovery lasted about a week. It turns out that apparently the Dartmouth bigwig conducted his experiment using just one of the photos. This is startling since there could be no comparison and contrast sets done with the others. Which scientifically, leaves a large hole in his methodology. Because today there are four of the photos: the two printed in the Warren Commission, the Roscoe White version, and the one surfaced by George DeMohrenschildt. It's hard to believe Farid did not know this. Also, if the original light source was the sun, how could one possibly duplicate that natural effect with a computer? Further, in a critique done by Jim Marrs and Jim Fetzer at OPEd News (11/18/09), it appears that the Farid study was also limited by the fact he did not do a full figure duplication. He only modeled the head and shoulder areas of Oswald. And by only using the one photo he eliminated a problem in comparison that the authors point out: Oswald's face is tilted in different directions in the photos. But the V-shaped shadow under the nose does not vary.

To show just how eager he was to make his above dubious declaration, Farid apparently does not know that besides not doing a comparison study, the shadows are only one of many problems with the photos. To mention just three others, there is the problem of comparing the relative heights and lengths of Oswald versus the rifle and the two papers he has in his hands; plus the problem of the line across the top of his chin; and the fact that the square chin in the photo is not like Oswald's rather pointed chin. (For two interesting studies of the photos click here and here.)

As should have been expected, it turns out that besides specializing in digital imaging, Farid has done work for the FBI. He defends them in court when they are accused of doctoring images. (NY Times, 10/2/07) But there is something even worse underneath it all.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

the fact that the square chin in the photo is not like Oswald's rather pointed chin.

LOL I debunked the square chin garbage last year.

If you can't distinguish between a chin and a jaw-line then it's time to look for something else to do with your time...

...you'd have excelled working with Gerald Ford who also like moving parts of the human anatomy around in order to create "facts." What a joke!

Still breaking your promise not to respond to any of my posts I see.

It's the lack of a visible continuity in the backyard photo between the jaw line and the chin, which makes the chin appear to be square.

Even you should be able to work that out.

Also consider the location of the camera in relation to Oswalds head. The camera had a waist level finder, placing it much lower than the head. Now try this simple experiment, Look directly into the corner of a table, from the same level as the table or slighty above. Notice the pointed corner. Now move your eye lower, so you are below the top level of the table. Notice how the visual shape of the corner has changed. Congratulations, you just solved the "pointed chin" mystery.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Now thats the stuff the really matters!

Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip!

Mike

Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it.

[Mike Williams]

Greg,

Now thats the stuff the really matters!

Congrats on the new Grand baby and have a great trip!

Mike

Thanks Mike. However, I still think this matters a lot too. It's never ceased to amaze me that LNers spend their time arguing this though. Right? I mean, what for? I know why I do it. I do it because the "record needs to be set straight". -- But why do those who think the record is already set straight continue to argue it? It would be like folks arguing that "gravity exists" with people who think it doesn't. I can see why those who disbelieve in gravity would spend their time arguing their point. But since I believe gravity is real and the idea of it isn't disinformation --I know I would never waste my time arguing with those who disbelieve in it because the text books and "science" is already supporting it and the "record is straight" on it.

Because the record need to remain straight.